spoonless

I was just reading the Wikipedia page on the anti-psychiatry movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry), and I really had to share this quick gem:

"Despite sharing notable antipsychiatrists' views on some issues, Scientology doctrine differs in some respects. Scientology has promoted psychiatry-related conspiracy theories, including that psychiatry was responsible for World War I,[69] the rise of Hitler and Stalin,[70] the decline in education standards in the United States,[71] the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo,[72] and the September 11 attacks.[73][74] Secular critics of psychiatry do not share these positions."

Yes, apparently they differ in "some respects", namely... most secular critics don't think every bad thing that has ever happened in history was a plot by psychiatrists? Who knew! And just in case that wasn't enough...

"Scientology doctrine, further, holds that psychiatrists caused the decline in this universe billions of years ago,[75] while Scientologists are committed to never taking psychiatric drugs and reject psychology outright.[76]"

I'm not sure what decline they are talking about, but do they really think there were psychiatrists around billions of years ago? I suppose if psychiatry is the ultimate evil in the universe, then it must have been around forever. It's interesting that this is sort of the inverse of what the young earth creationists believe. Instead of the earth having been formed thousands of years ago (around the time the first human civilizations formed), perhaps human civilizations (ruled by psychiatrists of course!) formed billions of years ago, around the time the earth formed. Tom Cruise, John Travolta? If you're reading this, I want you to know that every time I read anything about Scientology it gets harder and harder to enjoy your movies. =( I guess this does explain why Tom Cruise volunteered so much of his time to help the victims of Sept 11th. Maybe he thought he was undoing the psychiatrists dirty work? It also adds a whole new potential meaning to his comment on national television "you haven't read about the history of psychiatry! I have!!"

Also, I can't help but ask: if they reject psychology outright, would they reject or embrace reverse psychology? =)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I understand that, but I think what

easwaran was suggesting is that sometimes mythology serves a hidden function of keeping members in line. If he wrote all the stories about Xenu before he had any idea it would turn into a cult, then I think you've got a good argument that the two were unrelated. On the other hand, if he always had that in mind... I don't see why he couldn't have inserted it in there deliberately for the reason

easwaran says.

With a little exposure to Hubbard's work, you might be less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He wasn't especially clever, and abhorred the esoteric and metaphorical. He prided himself on being very 'scientific'.

As for Xenu, nah, that yarn was spun for the sole purpose of creating a functioning cult. When you start digging into their psyches, Hubbard's a really just a twisted version of Crowley.

Ok, I think you know a lot more about it than I do. I haven't actually read any of Hubbard's work, although I did watch Battlefield Earth last year. Seemed like a good premise but with really poor implementation. Not sure how much of that was the bad acting and how much was Hubbard's work just being a flop.

When you start digging into their psyches, Hubbard's a really just a twisted version of Crowley.

I remember seeing an interview with his son, where his son accuses his father and his father's cult of secretly being involved in black magic and devil worship. It sounded like a strange thing to say, considering all of the more legitimate critiques one could give of Scientology. But if Hubbard was really borrowing a lot from Crowley perhaps it makes at least *half* sense. Although it's strange that he would have imitated Crowley but hated the esoteric. Not sure how to make sense of that one. =)

I remember seeing an interview with his son, where his son accuses his father and his father's cult of secretly being involved in black magic and devil worship.

L Ron Hubbard's son, that is.

Here's a quote from his son that might add a little context: "What a lot of people don’t realize is that Scientology is black magic that is just spread over a long period of time. Black magic is the inner core of Scientology – and it is probably the only part of Scientology that really works."

Yes, that helps.

Out of curiosity, how would you define black magic?

If I recall correctly, Donald Kraig defines it in his book as magic used to influence other people lives, as opposed to grey magic which is used to influence your own life, or white magic which is used soley to attain spiritual enlightenment and get in touch with your holy guardian angel.

When I read that, I remember thinking "I bet these are not the only definitions in use". But so far I haven't come across any who states as clear definitions as he does for those.

Like so many dichotomies, the black/white magick one collapses if you scratch too deeply. But, from my vantage black magicks/sorcery involves predation, fear, and ego. It's often materialistic and narcissistic. On the other hand, white magic usually manifests as nurturing, expansive, and dissipative. Perhaps it's all in my head, but I generally find it very easy to distinguish which form of practice magicians prefer. I find that it affects their ... for lack of a better term, presence.

Ah, the descriptions you give actual fit much better with the notion of black and white magic I had before I came across Donald Kraig's definitions. But I figured those notions may just come from watching Disney Movies or something far removed from serious magickal practice.

So, is this one of those things where everyone has their own different definitions... do you think the ones I mentioned are non-standard, or are they somehow another way of looking at the ones you present? Or is it just a mixed bag and it depends on who you ask.

Yeah, it depends on who you ask. People who practice a lot of thaumaturgy - earthy, materialistic magics - tend to not see what they're doing as black magick. On the other hand, those who work primarily with theurgy see all that dabbling as rather silly.

Kraig wasn't being dishonest. He was accurately conveying an essential ambiguity. It's easy to get caught up in what kind of magick you want to practice - or be seen as practicing. There's no point in getting bogged down in that in the beginning, when pretty much every ritual you work will be ego-based.

Also, given your recent expressed interest in Scientology - and since you don't seem to read my blog - I thought I might draw your attention to this series of posts I made during and after my ... examination of Anonymous. You might find some of the details entertaining. ;)

wow

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject